Average for me which is a disappointment as I thought it was going to be superb. Like Rogue one. Oh well.

I might watch it again anyway.

Today I watched the 2011 Conan. Wow. Robert E Howard wrote loads of stories which are out of copyright and are far better than the plot of this movie. Also it was a flop so I do not think there is much chance of any more Conan for a while.

I liked Solo a ton. I would give it a solid B. Last Jedi on the other hand was just....bad. Again, to each his/her own I guess. The one thing I will say is that Star Wars movies are up against their own legacy and I think it is hard for them to get a fair shake. Everyone is always expecting that movie that is going to trump Empire...for me I am just looking for an entertaining movie and that was what Solo was. I enjoyed it more than the prequels and definitely last Jedi that is for sure. Not as good as Rogue One but a fun movie nonetheless.

Atarifever wrote:One would have to explain how Marvel and DC still sell tons of tickets to every movie (and Pixar and Fast and the Furious, etc.) and why Star Wars -- one of the biggest names in all of cinema history -- suddenly hit a fatigue level well beyond those with only 10 movies in 41 years.

I think that's a bit misleading. Yes, there were 10 movies in 41 years, but 4 of those 10 were just in the past 3 years. It's true that I'm not a die-hard Star Wars fan, I enjoy the series in general and was happy to keep up with them when they were being released a little more sparingly. With Solo, I found myself facing going to a third SW movie in the span of 6 months and I felt SW fatigue... I just can't muster the passion to go see it. I may be an outlier, but I'm pretty sure if it had been a year or more since the last one I'd definitely have made sure to catch Solo in the theater. Based on the numbers, I strongly suspect I'm not the only one for whom "Star Wars Fatigue" was indeed a thing this time around.

C64_Critic wrote: Based on the numbers, I strongly suspect I'm not the only one for whom "Star Wars Fatigue" was indeed a thing this time around.

Now that is misleading. Based on the numbers, the movies are doing poorly. Positing a theory on your own feelings, then extrapolating that to everyone just because the movies failed is not good theory building. According to that theory building, Rosanne was cancelled because people dislike her laugh because I dislike her laugh, and look, the show is cancelled.

Again, regardless if you would have seen it in six months time, how do you explain the huge numbers Marvel is still doing, with far more movies in the same few years. If you fall back on "well they are Marvel" you then have to explain how "they are Marvel" could ever have come to dominate over "well they are Star Wars." Star Wars was THE biggest movie name ever. Other studios used to have to plan their releases years in advance to NOT be out around Star Wars. Now, in just a few short years, Fox says "yeah, our R rated sequel to a lesser known Marvel character can easily crush it around Star Wars, even with another Marvel movie still in the theatre." And they're right!

As for a lot of those movies being in that same time, again, why does that not impact Marvel? Why does it not impact Fast and the Furious?

One could come up with tons of theories to explain everything about why all Star Wars is failing. The toys are no longer selling because of the economy and general toy sales (but other toys still sell for some reason). The Blu Ray and download releases are not selling because of Blu-Ray markets drying up and people waiting on streaming (but the sales are worse than either trend would predict). The box office for the Last Jedi is down because fans are misogynist suddenly (the less said the better). Solo is failing because for some reason Fox X-Men movie spin-offs have now supplanted them in the minds of the movie going public. And on and on.

OR: The movies are bad.

One of those theories is simple and explains everything in one concise package. People don't pay to see bad movies, they don't bring their kids to see bad movies so the kids don't ask for the toys, and they then down't pay to own bad movies at home.

The other set of theories begs more questions than it answers. Why are their toys specifically doing worse than other movie toys? Why do other over exposed franchises still do better on home release? Why would a B level Star Wars movie not beat a B studio Marvel movie? How did this only happen to one of the top 2 or 3 brands in all of entertainment and not other properties with much less fan allegiance going in?

C64_Critic wrote: Star Wars was THE biggest movie name ever. Other studios used to have to plan their releases years in advance to NOT be out around Star Wars. Now, in just a few short years, Fox says "yeah, our R rated sequel to a lesser known Marvel character can easily crush it around Star Wars, even with another Marvel movie still in the theatre." And they're right!

C64_Critic wrote: Based on the numbers, I strongly suspect I'm not the only one for whom "Star Wars Fatigue" was indeed a thing this time around.

Now that is misleading. Based on the numbers, the movies are doing poorly. Positing a theory on your own feelings, then extrapolating that to everyone just because the movies failed is not good theory building.

As for a lot of those movies being in that same time, again, why does that not impact Marvel? Why does it not impact Fast and the Furious?

Fast and the Furious did not release 4 movies in a 3 year time span. As to Marvel, you are correct that they haven't generally suffered much fatigue despite their constant releases, but really we've only been getting fed a Marvel diet for about a decade now - let's see what happens if they try to keep doing this 30 years from now.

In any case I did not state extrapolate that because *I* had fatigue EVERYONE who didn't see Solo must also have fatigue. I stated that I personally had SW fatigue, in response to you musing that it "was a made-up thing", to illustrate that - no - it is NOT a made up thing. I'm not going to pretend it's the only answer, but it is certainly the single biggest factor that kept me away from shelling out for it and the Critic himself even said he felt it (even though he went to see it). So that's at least two of us on this extremely small sampling of people.

Again, is it the main reason for low numbers? I doubt that. But I do feel it probably accounts for roughly 30% of the people who may have otherwise gone to see it. Is Solo a bad movie? I can't say. I just know that I didn't bother to go see it not because I heard it wasn't good, but because I've had enough SW in a very short time I'm a little worn out from them. And I stand by my statement that I'm not the only one.

Stalvern wrote:The reason for the public's indifference is very simple, very obvious, and completely unrelated to the film's quality or the production history or Internet trolls or anything else that keeps getting blamed. People weren't interested in the movie's basic idea, which was to present Alden Ehrenreich as Harrison Ford. Maybe, maybe, Ansel Elgort might have been able to pull it off with a little luck. But with the guy we got, absolutely nobody who saw the trailers believed that he was the real Han, and nothing else could make a difference after that.

IMO, the main reason for the indifference is Donald "Childish Gambino" Glover and his "This is America" video that was released shortly prior to Solo being released. He basically cut the potential audience of the movie in half.

Stalvern wrote:The reason for the public's indifference is very simple, very obvious, and completely unrelated to the film's quality or the production history or Internet trolls or anything else that keeps getting blamed. People weren't interested in the movie's basic idea, which was to present Alden Ehrenreich as Harrison Ford. Maybe, maybe, Ansel Elgort might have been able to pull it off with a little luck. But with the guy we got, absolutely nobody who saw the trailers believed that he was the real Han, and nothing else could make a difference after that.

IMO, the main reason for the indifference is Donald "Childish Gambino" Glover and his "This is America" video that was released shortly prior to Solo being released. He basically cut the potential audience of the movie in half.

You think "This is America" cut the movie's audience in half? If anything, it boosted it.